9 ms·

Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act"

271 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

_delirium 15y ago
mailing list discussion: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247
bdhe 15y ago
Maybe I'm being dense, but I couldn't gather from the notice the scope of the Italian law: Servers hosted in Italy? Publishers of said content irrespective of where it is hosted? Authors of said content? Would the website be blacklisted if it (loosely speaking the people behind it) do not cooperate with the law? Does Italy even have an internet blacklist?
- ErrantX 15y ago
  This came to the attention on the foundation wide discussion list earlier today (I think this is the first time the foundation were aware of it too...) & I've been digging into it. The law they are protesting basically says as follows: - Any party can post a notice to the owner/publisher of a website or blog etc. telling them to correct information (and provide the new information they require) and this must be done within 48 hours or a fine can be imposed. Obviously it is a silly law. Italian Wikipedians are arguing that it is risky for them because it leaves them open to receiving these notices and having fines imposed; and so they have shut down (on their own initiative) it.wiki. There is a lot of FUD flying around... but as best I can make out: - There is nothing in these new laws to actually blacklist of close down Wikipedia for non-compliance - There doesn't appear to be a way to use the law to target editors individually (although as with many laws it's really hard to make it "fit" into how Wikipedia is structured..). My own view I laid out here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56302 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/5630...
  - redthrowaway 15y ago
    Who even has the ability to delist it.wp? Does the Italian Arbcom have the power to remove the wiki? I would have thought that only the Foundation itself could have made this call. It appears they've redirected every page (even those that don't exist) to the notice. This would seem to require a hell of a lot greater access than any mere editor would be afforded.
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      The language Wikipedia's a fairly autonomous (which is good, FWIW, except when it goes wrong) with the Foundation trusting them to follow the core community ideals As to how they did this; MediaWiki has a Commons.js that is editable by admins. They stuck some JS in to redirect every page to their statement. The content is all there; just "hidden". Turning off JS will allow browsing the site (I think). EDIT: you'll also need to find a way to remove this piece of css: .portlet, #column-one, #firstHeading, #bodyContent, #footer, #catlinks, #siteNotice, #siteSub, #contentSub { display: none; }
      - twhaples 15y ago
        Jimmy Wales just described it (in a Facebook post) as "Wikipedia Italy is on strike against an idiotic proposed law". While Jimmy Wales is no longer synonymous with Wikipedia governance, his implicit endorsement of the strike is definitely Something. Though people are fighting on the mailing list and calling for all the Italian sysops be desysopped.
        ErrantX 15y ago
        Yes; he just posted to that effect on his en.wiki talk page. Disappointing, I feel. What next; English Wikipedia suspended till the US government sort out copyright laws? Worrying precedent!
        twhaples 15y ago
        The US neither has nor is presently debating any copyright laws which impose (or threaten to impose) a debilitating burden on the Wikipedia editing process and its content.
hugh3 15y ago
Now wait a minute, is this a law or a proposed law? If the former, they're complying. If the latter, they're having a hissy fit.
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Hissy fits are not unheard-of in the wikiverse.
- harryf 15y ago
  Well it seems like their trying to prevent a proposed law from becoming an actual law. Whether the threat is significant enough to warrant this action, I can't judge but it is a pretty effective form of protest, you have to admit, given that wikipedia is largely taken for granted these days.
  - nefe 15y ago
    I'm italian so excuse me for my terrible english. in the next 24hours this proposal law will be approved or not in base of the choose of the parlament, that is very influenced(?) by Berlusconi, for this reason italian writers of wikipedia had written the advice, for make the italian people think about what is happening. I'm so scared.
    - elliottcarlson 15y ago
      Not that a law like this should exist, but why does it scare you?
      - srl 15y ago
        Because it's a reminder of the presence of a government that has, at least in theory, the ability to make life suck harder for a long time through sheer stupidity. Those of us in the U.S. have the privilege of knowing that nothing will actually ever pass (and if it does, the chance of effective enforcement is comically slim). Folks in other countries aren't so lucky. :-)
tomp 15y ago
I don't understand how this is supposed to make sense... Isn't it just as possible for an Italian to be offended by something written on the English wikipedia as it is on the Italian one? Why don't they just shut down wikipedia as a whole then? Also, unless their servers are physically hosted in Italy or they have a number of employees based in Italy, I see no reason why they should abide by this law. Doesn't China lawfully demand censorship on every website? Maybe it's time they move their servers to Iceland... I can't help but see this as a mostly a politically motivated action, a form of protest and a way of spreading information about this paragraph among the Italian public, and I cannot see how this is in the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality... Edit: a somewhat similar attitude is present in this post on the mailing list http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247
- ErrantX 15y ago
  Why don't they just shut down wikipedia as a whole then? This is an action purely by the Italian community. The foundation were not even aware of it till a few hours ago :) I see no reason why they should abide by this law It's a protest against an upcoming law that ma lead to Italian editors being fined for not editing Wikipedia to the demands of companies/people.
  - CWuestefeld 15y ago
    tomp asked what I think is a crucial question, that you didn't address: what does the language-specific wiki have to do with it? Wouldn't the English-language wiki be subject to the very same law? If so, how does downing the Italian version protect wikipedia?
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      Communication has been oblique from the Italian community, so I can only give my "best guess" answer here. Practically speaking there is no way this can affect Wikipedia itself, because the servers are in the US. The Italians appear to be claiming that, however, this law would affect the editors directly - leading them to be fined if they write material that someone objects to (and don't fix it within 48 hours). I'm not really convinced myself (reading the law) that this is a risk for them. But it is the reason behind their move. (or if I was being critical; they are making a political gesture to try and stop the law, which is terrible...)
credo 15y ago
This is obviously serious, but the "Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act" title seems to be inaccurate. The wikipedia page talks about a "proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating". It appears that the proposal is not the law (yet)
- tommorris 15y ago
  And the site hasn't been "shut down" permanently. It's a temporary protest.
civilian 15y ago
It's not much, but I emailed the (Honorary Vice) Consul for Italy in my city. You can find yours at: http://www.nerone.cc/io/consulates.htm http://www.nerone.cc/io/consulates.htm
muuh-gnu 15y ago
Italian editors may have done this as a stunt to merely alarm italian readers of what a law may be comming, but the "italian language" wikipedia, even if probably mostly populated by italian citizens, is in no way connected to or obliged to abide by laws of italy, the state. There are probably millions of italian speakers who are not italian citizens, they are affected by this stunt even though they are in no way affected by this silly law. In my view, this is italian citizens effectively seizing italian language wikipedia to push their particular political interests, which apply only to italy. I also think that the foundation should not allow particular "countries" to effectively seize language editions of the wikipedia and enforce their particular laws on all readers and contributors who happen to speak that language.
- savramescu 15y ago
  The flaw with your argument is that by not stopping it here it'll snowball and affect more systems, more countries etc. This should be stopped now, otherwise France will be next then Germany than US and all of a sudden we'll all move to China.
- bp_ 15y ago
  It might however prevent or deter contributors living in Italy from contributing. And those are, quite obviously, the vast majority of the people contributing to the localized wikipedia. You seem to suggest that a geolocation-based "blocking" of Wikipedia would have been more effective, but that would mean this appeal wouldn't have reached any of you - including myself, an Italian student in an exchange period abroad. Besides, I can't really see wikipedia doing geolocation-based blocking of anything. It's just not coherent with the project of a global, free, libre, neutral, universal corpus of knowledge.
fosk 15y ago
I understand this may sound inappropriate by some of you. I'm italian, I live in the US, and I'm deeply updated on the political and cultural changes that we're witnessing in Italy. The proposed law we're talking about is basically against any kind of interception (mostly phone calls) legally used by police and public prosecutors to arrest criminals and mafia members. This is scaring the italian government simply because the prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been brought in trial thanks to some interceptions (the sex scandals, lately). Apart compromising thousands of trials by helping lots of criminals to not be arrested and uncovered, this law also includes a specific paragraph stating that any kind of publication publicly distributed referring to an individual (like on a newspaper, blog or wikipedia) can be deleted upon the request of the offended part without proving that his motivations are true. Let's say that a Wikipedia article states that Berlusconi has been accused for something, he can, thanks to this law, ask the removal of the information even if they're true and he's wrong. This clearly threatens the freedom of press in Italy, and this is why what Wikipedia is doing, if put in the current italian political context, can be not only justified but also approved.
- antirez 15y ago
  Oh and note that according to this bright law proposal even the blog ran by the 14 years old should remove/change the content within 48 hours. It's hard to get more lame than that. Also note that this is happening at the same time that in Italy Berlusconi is unlikely to get elected again, so he is exploiting the last months of being the prime minister to ruin a bit more our country.
- jessriedel 15y ago
  I don't think many HN readers need to be convinced that this is probably a bad (potential) law. The real issue is the appropriateness of this action by Italian-language editors as a response to this proposed law.
- koenigdavidmj 15y ago
  And in that short of time frame, the only ways (generally) to communicate with the host of the material are by email or phone. In either case, there is little way to verify that someone telling you to take it down is the subject of the text.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
FrancescoRizzi 15y ago
Been following the issue regarding this law for a while now. The relevant twitter hashtag seems to be #NoLeggeBavaglio (Italian for '[Say] No to the gag law") for those that wish to find out more. This is but one blog (in Italian) on this topic and the campaign to try and keep paragraph 29 from sticking around: http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-post-a-rete-unificata.htm http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-post-...
gasull 15y ago
Can't this be solved with Wikipedia (who is hosted outside Italy) not showing the IPs of the wikipedians in Italy? Also, I think that these laws will move people to the darknets, like Tor. People aren't going to stop blogging, downloading copyrighted stuff, etc. Tor isn't even hard to install or use anymore.
- mahyarm 15y ago
  Darknets are so slow that it pushes away normal people unless absolutely necessary. It's like walking vs. driving.
  - gasull 15y ago
    They are slow for some things, but you can perfectly use Tor for blogging, email, IRC, etc. For video or audio is usually slow.
uomoinpolvere 15y ago
Hi I'm italian, and obviously concerned about this issue. I think this could possibly be a game changer for wikipedia. I think the principle of neutrality has been put aside. This seems to me a political move. Please don't misunderstand me: I hate Burlesquoni and this idiotic law. But I always been very doubtful about wikipedia's "neutrality". I hope this move could serve both purposes: increase italians' awareness about their kinda-fascist government and make wikipedians think deeper about "neutrality", and its limits.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's existing policies on neutrality, because Wikipedia's neutrality policies apply to its encyclopedic content. The Wikimedia Foundation and participants in its projects have never been constrained by that particular policy, and are free to gleefully offer their opinions and pursue agendas. Indeed, the foundation is dedicated to spreading knowledge, and is opinionated about constraints on that goal. No one has suggested, or is under the impression, that this notice is the same as an encyclopedia article. The encyclopedia article which ultimately covers this event will remain free* of opinionated statements, and instead describe the law, notable expert comments on its implications, the Wikipedia shutdown, reactions to this shutdown, and the stated motives of various participants, allowing the matter to speak for itself. It does not need to agitate for more freedom or pass judgement on the moral validity of the regime. (* Wikipedia, being a product of mere mortals, will necessarily be an imperfect representation of neutrality. Nitpicking about this fact too much is minimally productive. People will do what they can.)
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    Just having a (as much as possible) neutral source of information will be incredibly valuable to to the human race. History has always been rewritten by the victors, and that is generally a very bad thing. That can't happen anymore.
- tommorris 15y ago
  Encyclopedia content has to be neutral. But as a whole Wikipedia is not "neutral". We're pretty strongly in favour of free licenses (Creative Commons etc.), open source, access to free knowledge and against censorship. Hence why we don't like crappy laws like this. As Mike Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame) said: "I'd also like to +1 the thought that the very existence of Wikipedia is not itself NPOV -- it reflects a philosophical and political position, and one that just about all of us here agree with." http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069290.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-Octob...
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
jarofgreen 15y ago
Have you seen Mark Thomas "My life in serious organised crime" (DVD and Radio)? I highly recommend it if you know the UK at all. In it, he talks about "playing" with the law. There was a law in the UK saying all protests within a zone (roughly a mile of parliament) had to be licensed by the police. So he started playing with the law - never breaking it - but playing with it and generally being a right pain in the ass (at times with several thousand friends) to point out how stupid the law was. In the end, the law was removed (altho some people say what it was replaced with was even worse). His half hour radio show is on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M (Illegally, I assume - your call) But anyway, if this law passes play with it to demonstrate how shit it is. For starters, go through every public statement Berlusconi's party has ever issued on-line and complain if possible. Then move on to the output of the Berlusconi owned media. I don't know Italy well, so I don't know if this would work but certainly something to think about.
dariosalvelli 15y ago
I think that this is a good form to protest because most italian users use Wikipedia so they can understand the impact of the law. I write on my blog: http://dariosalvelli.com/2011/10/wikipedia-italia-chiude http://dariosalvelli.com/2011/10/wikipedia-italia-chiude
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

271 points by nextparadigms 15y ago

mailing list discussion: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247

bdhe 15y ago

Maybe I'm being dense, but I couldn't gather from the notice the scope of the Italian law: Servers hosted in Italy? Publishers of said content irrespective of where it is hosted? Authors of said content? Would the website be blacklisted if it (loosely speaking the people behind it) do not cooperate with the law? Does Italy even have an internet blacklist?

ErrantX 15y ago
This came to the attention on the foundation wide discussion list earlier today (I think this is the first time the foundation were aware of it too...) & I've been digging into it. The law they are protesting basically says as follows: - Any party can post a notice to the owner/publisher of a website or blog etc. telling them to correct information (and provide the new information they require) and this must be done within 48 hours or a fine can be imposed. Obviously it is a silly law. Italian Wikipedians are arguing that it is risky for them because it leaves them open to receiving these notices and having fines imposed; and so they have shut down (on their own initiative) it.wiki. There is a lot of FUD flying around... but as best I can make out: - There is nothing in these new laws to actually blacklist of close down Wikipedia for non-compliance - There doesn't appear to be a way to use the law to target editors individually (although as with many laws it's really hard to make it "fit" into how Wikipedia is structured..). My own view I laid out here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56302 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/5630...
- redthrowaway 15y ago
  Who even has the ability to delist it.wp? Does the Italian Arbcom have the power to remove the wiki? I would have thought that only the Foundation itself could have made this call. It appears they've redirected every page (even those that don't exist) to the notice. This would seem to require a hell of a lot greater access than any mere editor would be afforded.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    The language Wikipedia's a fairly autonomous (which is good, FWIW, except when it goes wrong) with the Foundation trusting them to follow the core community ideals As to how they did this; MediaWiki has a Commons.js that is editable by admins. They stuck some JS in to redirect every page to their statement. The content is all there; just "hidden". Turning off JS will allow browsing the site (I think). EDIT: you'll also need to find a way to remove this piece of css: .portlet, #column-one, #firstHeading, #bodyContent, #footer, #catlinks, #siteNotice, #siteSub, #contentSub { display: none; }
    - twhaples 15y ago
      Jimmy Wales just described it (in a Facebook post) as "Wikipedia Italy is on strike against an idiotic proposed law". While Jimmy Wales is no longer synonymous with Wikipedia governance, his implicit endorsement of the strike is definitely Something. Though people are fighting on the mailing list and calling for all the Italian sysops be desysopped.
      - ErrantX 15y ago
        Yes; he just posted to that effect on his en.wiki talk page. Disappointing, I feel. What next; English Wikipedia suspended till the US government sort out copyright laws? Worrying precedent!
        twhaples 15y ago
        The US neither has nor is presently debating any copyright laws which impose (or threaten to impose) a debilitating burden on the Wikipedia editing process and its content.

hugh3 15y ago

Now wait a minute, is this a law or a proposed law? If the former, they're complying. If the latter, they're having a hissy fit.

redthrowaway 15y ago
Hissy fits are not unheard-of in the wikiverse.
harryf 15y ago
Well it seems like their trying to prevent a proposed law from becoming an actual law. Whether the threat is significant enough to warrant this action, I can't judge but it is a pretty effective form of protest, you have to admit, given that wikipedia is largely taken for granted these days.
- nefe 15y ago
  I'm italian so excuse me for my terrible english. in the next 24hours this proposal law will be approved or not in base of the choose of the parlament, that is very influenced(?) by Berlusconi, for this reason italian writers of wikipedia had written the advice, for make the italian people think about what is happening. I'm so scared.
  - elliottcarlson 15y ago
    Not that a law like this should exist, but why does it scare you?
    - srl 15y ago
      Because it's a reminder of the presence of a government that has, at least in theory, the ability to make life suck harder for a long time through sheer stupidity. Those of us in the U.S. have the privilege of knowing that nothing will actually ever pass (and if it does, the chance of effective enforcement is comically slim). Folks in other countries aren't so lucky. :-)

tomp 15y ago

I don't understand how this is supposed to make sense... Isn't it just as possible for an Italian to be offended by something written on the English wikipedia as it is on the Italian one? Why don't they just shut down wikipedia as a whole then? Also, unless their servers are physically hosted in Italy or they have a number of employees based in Italy, I see no reason why they should abide by this law. Doesn't China lawfully demand censorship on every website? Maybe it's time they move their servers to Iceland... I can't help but see this as a mostly a politically motivated action, a form of protest and a way of spreading information about this paragraph among the Italian public, and I cannot see how this is in the spirit of Wikipedia's neutrality... Edit: a somewhat similar attitude is present in this post on the mailing list http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.foundation/56247

ErrantX 15y ago
Why don't they just shut down wikipedia as a whole then? This is an action purely by the Italian community. The foundation were not even aware of it till a few hours ago :) I see no reason why they should abide by this law It's a protest against an upcoming law that ma lead to Italian editors being fined for not editing Wikipedia to the demands of companies/people.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  tomp asked what I think is a crucial question, that you didn't address: what does the language-specific wiki have to do with it? Wouldn't the English-language wiki be subject to the very same law? If so, how does downing the Italian version protect wikipedia?
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    Communication has been oblique from the Italian community, so I can only give my "best guess" answer here. Practically speaking there is no way this can affect Wikipedia itself, because the servers are in the US. The Italians appear to be claiming that, however, this law would affect the editors directly - leading them to be fined if they write material that someone objects to (and don't fix it within 48 hours). I'm not really convinced myself (reading the law) that this is a risk for them. But it is the reason behind their move. (or if I was being critical; they are making a political gesture to try and stop the law, which is terrible...)

credo 15y ago

This is obviously serious, but the "Wikipedia shuts down Italian site because of Berlusconi's "Wiretapping Act" title seems to be inaccurate. The wikipedia page talks about a "proposal, which the Italian Parliament is currently debating". It appears that the proposal is not the law (yet)

tommorris 15y ago
And the site hasn't been "shut down" permanently. It's a temporary protest.

civilian 15y ago

It's not much, but I emailed the (Honorary Vice) Consul for Italy in my city. You can find yours at: http://www.nerone.cc/io/consulates.htm http://www.nerone.cc/io/consulates.htm

muuh-gnu 15y ago

Italian editors may have done this as a stunt to merely alarm italian readers of what a law may be comming, but the "italian language" wikipedia, even if probably mostly populated by italian citizens, is in no way connected to or obliged to abide by laws of italy, the state. There are probably millions of italian speakers who are not italian citizens, they are affected by this stunt even though they are in no way affected by this silly law. In my view, this is italian citizens effectively seizing italian language wikipedia to push their particular political interests, which apply only to italy. I also think that the foundation should not allow particular "countries" to effectively seize language editions of the wikipedia and enforce their particular laws on all readers and contributors who happen to speak that language.

savramescu 15y ago
The flaw with your argument is that by not stopping it here it'll snowball and affect more systems, more countries etc. This should be stopped now, otherwise France will be next then Germany than US and all of a sudden we'll all move to China.
bp_ 15y ago
It might however prevent or deter contributors living in Italy from contributing. And those are, quite obviously, the vast majority of the people contributing to the localized wikipedia. You seem to suggest that a geolocation-based "blocking" of Wikipedia would have been more effective, but that would mean this appeal wouldn't have reached any of you - including myself, an Italian student in an exchange period abroad. Besides, I can't really see wikipedia doing geolocation-based blocking of anything. It's just not coherent with the project of a global, free, libre, neutral, universal corpus of knowledge.

fosk 15y ago

I understand this may sound inappropriate by some of you. I'm italian, I live in the US, and I'm deeply updated on the political and cultural changes that we're witnessing in Italy. The proposed law we're talking about is basically against any kind of interception (mostly phone calls) legally used by police and public prosecutors to arrest criminals and mafia members. This is scaring the italian government simply because the prime minister Silvio Berlusconi has been brought in trial thanks to some interceptions (the sex scandals, lately). Apart compromising thousands of trials by helping lots of criminals to not be arrested and uncovered, this law also includes a specific paragraph stating that any kind of publication publicly distributed referring to an individual (like on a newspaper, blog or wikipedia) can be deleted upon the request of the offended part without proving that his motivations are true. Let's say that a Wikipedia article states that Berlusconi has been accused for something, he can, thanks to this law, ask the removal of the information even if they're true and he's wrong. This clearly threatens the freedom of press in Italy, and this is why what Wikipedia is doing, if put in the current italian political context, can be not only justified but also approved.

antirez 15y ago
Oh and note that according to this bright law proposal even the blog ran by the 14 years old should remove/change the content within 48 hours. It's hard to get more lame than that. Also note that this is happening at the same time that in Italy Berlusconi is unlikely to get elected again, so he is exploiting the last months of being the prime minister to ruin a bit more our country.
jessriedel 15y ago
I don't think many HN readers need to be convinced that this is probably a bad (potential) law. The real issue is the appropriateness of this action by Italian-language editors as a response to this proposed law.
koenigdavidmj 15y ago
And in that short of time frame, the only ways (generally) to communicate with the host of the material are by email or phone. In either case, there is little way to verify that someone telling you to take it down is the subject of the text.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

FrancescoRizzi 15y ago

Been following the issue regarding this law for a while now. The relevant twitter hashtag seems to be #NoLeggeBavaglio (Italian for '[Say] No to the gag law") for those that wish to find out more. This is but one blog (in Italian) on this topic and the campaign to try and keep paragraph 29 from sticking around: http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-post-a-rete-unificata.htm http://www.valigiablu.it/doc/540/comma-ammazza-blog-un-post-...

gasull 15y ago

Can't this be solved with Wikipedia (who is hosted outside Italy) not showing the IPs of the wikipedians in Italy? Also, I think that these laws will move people to the darknets, like Tor. People aren't going to stop blogging, downloading copyrighted stuff, etc. Tor isn't even hard to install or use anymore.

mahyarm 15y ago
Darknets are so slow that it pushes away normal people unless absolutely necessary. It's like walking vs. driving.
- gasull 15y ago
  They are slow for some things, but you can perfectly use Tor for blogging, email, IRC, etc. For video or audio is usually slow.

uomoinpolvere 15y ago

Hi I'm italian, and obviously concerned about this issue. I think this could possibly be a game changer for wikipedia. I think the principle of neutrality has been put aside. This seems to me a political move. Please don't misunderstand me: I hate Burlesquoni and this idiotic law. But I always been very doubtful about wikipedia's "neutrality". I hope this move could serve both purposes: increase italians' awareness about their kinda-fascist government and make wikipedians think deeper about "neutrality", and its limits.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
This is entirely consistent with Wikipedia's existing policies on neutrality, because Wikipedia's neutrality policies apply to its encyclopedic content. The Wikimedia Foundation and participants in its projects have never been constrained by that particular policy, and are free to gleefully offer their opinions and pursue agendas. Indeed, the foundation is dedicated to spreading knowledge, and is opinionated about constraints on that goal. No one has suggested, or is under the impression, that this notice is the same as an encyclopedia article. The encyclopedia article which ultimately covers this event will remain free* of opinionated statements, and instead describe the law, notable expert comments on its implications, the Wikipedia shutdown, reactions to this shutdown, and the stated motives of various participants, allowing the matter to speak for itself. It does not need to agitate for more freedom or pass judgement on the moral validity of the regime. (* Wikipedia, being a product of mere mortals, will necessarily be an imperfect representation of neutrality. Nitpicking about this fact too much is minimally productive. People will do what they can.)
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  Just having a (as much as possible) neutral source of information will be incredibly valuable to to the human race. History has always been rewritten by the victors, and that is generally a very bad thing. That can't happen anymore.
tommorris 15y ago
Encyclopedia content has to be neutral. But as a whole Wikipedia is not "neutral". We're pretty strongly in favour of free licenses (Creative Commons etc.), open source, access to free knowledge and against censorship. Hence why we don't like crappy laws like this. As Mike Godwin (of Godwin's Law fame) said: "I'd also like to +1 the thought that the very existence of Wikipedia is not itself NPOV -- it reflects a philosophical and political position, and one that just about all of us here agree with." http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-October/069290.html http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2011-Octob...

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

jarofgreen 15y ago

Have you seen Mark Thomas "My life in serious organised crime" (DVD and Radio)? I highly recommend it if you know the UK at all. In it, he talks about "playing" with the law. There was a law in the UK saying all protests within a zone (roughly a mile of parliament) had to be licensed by the police. So he started playing with the law - never breaking it - but playing with it and generally being a right pain in the ass (at times with several thousand friends) to point out how stupid the law was. In the end, the law was removed (altho some people say what it was replaced with was even worse). His half hour radio show is on Youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M (Illegally, I assume - your call) But anyway, if this law passes play with it to demonstrate how shit it is. For starters, go through every public statement Berlusconi's party has ever issued on-line and complain if possible. Then move on to the output of the Berlusconi owned media. I don't know Italy well, so I don't know if this would work but certainly something to think about.

dariosalvelli 15y ago

I think that this is a good form to protest because most italian users use Wikipedia so they can understand the impact of the law. I write on my blog: http://dariosalvelli.com/2011/10/wikipedia-italia-chiude http://dariosalvelli.com/2011/10/wikipedia-italia-chiude

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]